PDA

View Full Version : why record keeping is a farce


Capper Al
08-06-2014, 08:14 AM
The last major subject to be written about has been on record keeping one's wagers. The idea is that if you know your strengths and weaknesses one should be able to stir themself toward profitability. Sounds logical doesn't it? And that's the lure that the average punter can't resist. Give a horseplayer an idea, and they throw money at it. Why is this a farce? Think about it. We derive our handicapping based on assumptions that probably utilize imperfect numbers and we may not have or know of all the information we need to bring this idea to fruition. If we win we conclude we have a winning method or if we lose we conclude our method didn't work. Record keeping in this manner is off little value because our opinion of what we think is in the way of our research, that is our formula. It is actually no better than the old lady who bets a horse on the colors of the silks. Instead we guess on our opinion. Both the old lady and the handicapper at the end of the day can record how they did. And if the lady had a good day, she might believe that blue is her winning color similarly to our handicapper with his method. What needs to be recorded is the inputted data to our decision not how we played based on our decisions.

Overlay
08-06-2014, 08:51 AM
I would agree with you as long as you're basing your handicapping and wagering decisions on subjective criteria that change from one race to the next. However, if you're using a method or system that deals in objective data, and that is applied in a consistent or standardized manner race-in and race-out, then record-keeping of wagers and results can tell you which components of the method or system are failing to perform as expected, allowing you to make adjustments to improve your selection and wagering.

The other intrinsic values of record-keeping that I can see are as a means of aiding a fallible memory, and preventing selective recollection of successes while glossing over losses (not to mention having documentation of losses available in the event of taxable success).

Tom
08-06-2014, 09:30 AM
No matter how you decide on your wagers, if you do not keep records, you have no idea how you are doing. Even if you are betting random numbers, you need to know how you are performing.

traynor
08-06-2014, 10:48 AM
Keeping records is good--if you are keeping records, rather than validating your own preconceptions and predispositions, and supporting the validation with appropriate "records."

Horse racing is only difficult until one realizes that people want to be right more than they want to win. Foolish, but human nature. Translated, that means bettors are far more likely to "keep records" that make it seem they made a lot of right choices, rather than that they made a lot of wrong choices.

I can remember Sartin users so caught up in the "accentuate the positive" dogma that they ONLY kept records (including PPs, pace lines, etc.) of winning races. Their failures can be directly attributed, not to a LACK of records, but rather to an abundance of seriously skewed, ego-flattering records. It helps to understand the difference.

Robert Goren
08-06-2014, 11:08 AM
My ADWs keep the records for me. When I screw arround too much, my account balance goes to $0.00 and I have to reload. That is all I need to know.

Capper Al
08-06-2014, 11:32 AM
My ADWs keep the records for me. When I screw arround too much, my account balance goes to $0.00 and I have to reload. That is all I need to know.

My focus is on improving one's handicapping.

Capper Al
08-06-2014, 12:23 PM
Robert,

I use Twinspires also for following my wagers and managing my budget.

Clocker
08-06-2014, 12:52 PM
if you're using a method or system that deals in objective data, and that is applied in a consistent or standardized manner race-in and race-out, then record-keeping of wagers and results can tell you which components of the method or system are failing to perform as expected, allowing you to make adjustments to improve your selection and wagering.



Or which applications of the method are more effective than others. A method might work with turf routes but not with turf sprints. Or with MSW but not with Mdn Cl. Even a growing ADW account will not give you that information.

PressThePace
08-06-2014, 01:25 PM
Horse racing is only difficult until one realizes that people want to be right more than they want to win. Foolish, but human nature. Translated, that means bettors are far more likely to "keep records" that make it seem they made a lot of right choices, rather than that they made a lot of wrong choices.

I agree with this. I review wagers daily to determine where I went wrong. I will then make inferences based on groupings of "wrong" wagers. If the trend of "wrong" wagers is supported after further and exhaustive investigation, I make adjustments. It's all about the bottome line...how can I become more profitable in terms of more $$$, and can I increase ROI?

FocusWiz
08-06-2014, 01:44 PM
The last major subject to be written about has been on record keeping one's wagers. The idea is that if you know your strengths and weaknesses one should be able to stir themself toward profitability. Sounds logical doesn't it? And that's the lure that the average punter can't resist. Give a horseplayer an idea, and they throw money at it. Why is this a farce? Think about it. We derive our handicapping based on assumptions that probably utilize imperfect numbers and we may not have or know of all the information we need to bring this idea to fruition. If we win we conclude we have a winning method or if we lose we conclude our method didn't work. Record keeping in this manner is off little value because our opinion of what we think is in the way of our research, that is our formula. It is actually no better than the old lady who bets a horse on the colors of the silks. Instead we guess on our opinion. Both the old lady and the handicapper at the end of the day can record how they did. And if the lady had a good day, she might believe that blue is her winning color similarly to our handicapper with his method. What needs to be recorded is the inputted data to our decision not how we played based on our decisions.There is some merit to thes comments, but I will add a different perspective.

Recordkeeping is not necessarily a farce, but it is often misguided.

First of all, from what I have seen, sample size is very important for making decisions but is hard to quantify. Suppose a method works well for one set of conditions but not for another in our sample. Do we decide to eliminate that method for the set it does not work for? More than once I have seen the nonworking method start kicking in positive results where it was previously useless (often with the formerly "working" set no longer working). Is 100 races enough? 1000? Many have an idea what makes sense, but once you start factoring in the decision process, you are reducing the sample considerably. You may have 1000 races, but perhaps you only won in races where there was a longshot after a long layoff who was good with a previous trainer and was recently claimed and is first time with Lasix. Does that mean that you have 1000 races with a longshot after a long layoff who was good with a previous trainer and was recently claimed and is first time with Lasix? Probably not.

Also, your comment, "What needs to be recorded is the inputted data to our decision not how we played based on our decisions," could be leading you down the wrong path. Once you have some level of confidence in the selection process you have chosen (I believe that is what you are referring to "the inputted data to our decision"), you need to be concerned with the rules used to decide how you played based on those decisions. If you, for example, only use certain pace and speed figures for choosing a play and ignore other factors, recording these may not help you. Certainly post-time odds could be a factor in determining whether a bet is going to be lucrative long term. You may choose the best horse in the race and have a 50% chance of him winning when all is said and done. However, that is probably not a good wager going off at 1/9. This is only one of many factors that you may not be considering.

So, the conundrum is this: You need to track whatever you are capable of measuring and/or incorporating into the decision process whether or not you are currently using it, as long as you deem it reasonable to include it. Saddle cloth color may be one of the factors you can easily track, but may not be one you will ever use. The problem is knowing which things are relevant factors and which are not. Not every factor is easy to track and not every factor is as relevant or irrelevant as it may first seem. Once you have tracked this for several thousand races and realize something is missing, you may need to start over again.

I would be interested in how other do this. I have been wrestling with the same question.

thaskalos
08-06-2014, 02:10 PM
How many horseplayers have found that their record-keeping results keep repeating over time?

What I mean by this is...if we record a particular win-rate and profit during a certain length of time...do we expect to show approximately the same results going forward -- and do we assume that something is "wrong" if we don't (show approximately the same results)?

I ask this because I keep remembering James Quinn stating in his books that his win-betting performance remains consistent over time. Sadly...mine is a little more inconsistent...

PressThePace
08-06-2014, 02:17 PM
How many horseplayers have found that their record-keeping results keep repeating over time?

What I mean by this is...if we record a particular win-rate and profit during a certain length of time...do we expect to show approximately the same results going forward -- and do we assume that something is "wrong" if we don't (show approximately the same results)?

I ask this because I keep remembering James Quinn stating in his books that his win-betting performance remains consistent over time. Sadly...mine is a little more inconsistent...

Speaking only for myself, my results have repeated or actually improved over the last 4-5 years, but only as a result of my record keeping. I don't get involved to deeply into exotic wagers, so I obviously have fewer swings.

traynor
08-06-2014, 02:37 PM
How many horseplayers have found that their record-keeping results keep repeating over time?

What I mean by this is...if we record a particular win-rate and profit during a certain length of time...do we expect to show approximately the same results going forward -- and do we assume that something is "wrong" if we don't (show approximately the same results)?

I ask this because I keep remembering James Quinn stating in his books that his win-betting performance remains consistent over time. Sadly...mine is a little more inconsistent...

Good thing for Quinn he had a day job.

Maximillion
08-06-2014, 03:17 PM
How many horseplayers have found that their record-keeping results keep repeating over time?

What I mean by this is...if we record a particular win-rate and profit during a certain length of time...do we expect to show approximately the same results going forward -- and do we assume that something is "wrong" if we don't (show approximately the same results)?

I ask this because I keep remembering James Quinn stating in his books that his win-betting performance remains consistent over time. Sadly...mine is a little more inconsistent...

The only thing that keeps repeating for me is an avg. 4-1 win price.This holds up over many, many races....even broken up into smaller chunks.

The problem for me is the win % can be all over the map from month to month.

thaskalos
08-06-2014, 03:19 PM
The only thing that keeps repeating for me is an avg. 4-1 win price.This holds up over many, many races....even broken up into smaller chunks.

The problem for me is the win % can be all over the map from month to month.

I don't think that's a "problem"; I think that's reality...

Maximillion
08-06-2014, 03:31 PM
I don't think that's a "problem"; I think that's reality...

indeed it is.

thaskalos
08-06-2014, 07:02 PM
Proper record-keeping also offers another useful advantage...which doesn't usually get mentioned.

Many players sustain the mistaken belief that their "method" is solid...but they lack the necessary discipline to follow it to the letter. They think that they win when they "follow their method"...and that they lose only when they deviate from their pre-established plans.

Keeping detailed records dispels silly notions like that.

Dark Horse
08-06-2014, 07:33 PM
What needs to be recorded is the inputted data to our decision not how we played based on our decisions.

Both need to be recorded. Otherwise you would never know if the method's winning expectation and winning percentage were aligned.

Tom
08-06-2014, 09:20 PM
Originally Posted by Capper Al
What needs to be recorded is the inputted data to our decision not how we played based on our decisions.

Why do you assume it isn't?

classhandicapper
08-07-2014, 09:08 AM
I learned a few things keeping meticulous records years ago, but to be honest I don't do nearly as good a job as I used to. I don't even review them much anymore other than the profit/loss for the year. I think I'm at the point where I just sort of know what I am good at and what I'm bad at. So I focus on the former and avoid the latter all while continuing to learn. If I add something new to my game I create a separate spreadsheet for it. For example, this year I am betting on mule racing. Those results are not combined with my horse results. They are in a separate spreadsheet. I don't bet on 2yo maiden races with lots of first time starters, but I am learning some things about those races. If I ever start playing them it will be lightly and I'll put it in a separate spreadsheet.

raybo
08-07-2014, 07:18 PM
People who don't keep consistent, adequate records of their betting have no idea where their strengths and weaknesses lie. People who say record keeping is not necessary, or even "a farce", either can't handle the truth, or are just too lazy to do it correctly.

If your method requires subjective decision making then that subjective data, of course, must be included in the record keeping. If your method doesn't require subjective decision making, there are still many things that need to be included in your record keeping. So, either way it means some extra "work" must be done, unless your detailed record keeping is automated of course, and many people just don't want to be bothered with that extra work.

It's always a good idea to look in the mirror, often. You might just see what your real problem is.

Capper Al
08-07-2014, 08:34 PM
That's the problem with record keeping. Over a short period of time we assume we know our strengths and weaknesses. For example, let's say I think my method works well with claimers. There are too many confounded variables for me to accurately say that it worked or didn't. Now on the other hand if my INPUTTED data was BRIS speed figures, I could more accurately measure that. Our methods are a mixture like a soup. A soup that we cannot taste. If our soup is selling or not, we have no way to confirm why. Blindly adding salt or pepper or anything else is just foolish. Let alone making statistics on it.

Maximillion
08-07-2014, 09:45 PM
That's the problem with record keeping. Over a short period of time we assume we know our strengths and weaknesses. For example, let's say I think my method works well with claimers. There are too many confounded variables for me to accurately say that it worked or didn't. Now on the other hand if my INPUTTED data was BRIS speed figures, I could more accurately measure that. Our methods are a mixture like a soup. A soup that we cannot taste. If our soup is selling or not, we have no way to confirm why. Blindly adding salt or pepper or anything else is just foolish. Let alone making statistics on it.

My opinion is you have been given some pretty solid advice in this thread (and others) and I kinda get the feeling you are ignoring it.

Capper Al
08-08-2014, 08:40 AM
My opinion is you have been given some pretty solid advice in this thread (and others) and I kinda get the feeling you are ignoring it.

Devil with the blue silks on. Are all you yeah sayers rich since you were able to apply the logic of corrective action? If this advise works then all that anyone must do is adjust their ways to fit their profitable outcomes. If not, I'm right.

Tom
08-08-2014, 09:16 AM
No, you are only right about you.
You have no clue what records other people keep or how they use them.
Rich?

If that is your criteria, you are in the wrong game.

raybo
08-08-2014, 10:02 AM
That's the problem with record keeping. Over a short period of time we assume we know our strengths and weaknesses.

Nobody here said anything about "short period of time" did they? No they didn't. The fact is, if you don't keep track of "all" your racing related expenditures and "all" your racing related income, you don't even know if you're profitable long term. And that's just the money part. You also wouldn't know which tracks you should play or avoid, which bet types to play or avoid, etc., etc., etc..

The more you post, the more you damage your claim of winning over the last few years. Without good records you have no idea whether you're winning or losing, much less any of the other stuff that good record keeping can shed light on.

airsick
08-08-2014, 10:29 AM
I completely agree. Who cares if every horse you selected this week is fading at the 16th? or if your wager wasn't appropriate for the odds being offered. Oh wait... that stuff doesn't show when trying to sort through your twinspires account does it?

Capper Al
08-08-2014, 11:27 AM
Nobody here said anything about "short period of time" did they? No they didn't. The fact is, if you don't keep track of "all" your racing related expenditures and "all" your racing related income, you don't even know if you're profitable long term. And that's just the money part. You also wouldn't know which tracks you should play or avoid, which bet types to play or avoid, etc., etc., etc..

The more you post, the more you damage your claim of winning over the last few years. Without good records you have no idea whether you're winning or losing, much less any of the other stuff that good record keeping can shed light on.

Raybo,

I should have approached this topic a little differently. Yes, I keep records. What I'm trying to assert is that for handicapping, not wagering, one must look at the value of the data given upfront- not after it has been formulated by our own processes. By the way, moving up from a mini roller to a low roller hasn't been good. This might be my first year in six years that I've lost money. It's a learning process every bit of the way.

Dave Schwartz
08-08-2014, 11:47 AM
My focus is on improving one's handicapping.

That's the problem with record keeping. Over a short period of time we assume we know our strengths and weaknesses.

Al,

If I were coaching someone who felt this way, I would say that they needed a complete makeover.

How do you know what will improve your handicapping without keeping records?


Anthony Robbins says that the secret to being good at anything is asking good questions.

Perhaps a better way is to ask a meaningful question: "What's wrong with your handicapping now?"

Looking just at the total result of betting records, about the best answer that you can come up with is, "It isn't working."

Instead, how about questions like these:

"How well do my combined contenders do when compared to the horses I make non-contenders?"

If my non-contenders are not losing big money then I am simply not very good at contender selection.

It would be helpful if my contenders would produce a combined $net in at least the low $1.80s.


"When I compare my contenders to my non-contenders at low odds, do my contenders outperform?"

If my low-odds non-contenders are not performing poorly (i.e. losing 30% or more of each wagered dollar) then I cannot have confidence in the low-odds horses I toss.

Conversely, if those low-odds non-contenders ARE losing 40% or more, then I could simply concentrate on the races where I have a low-odds toss. I could probably throw darts and almost break even in those races because the pool is being supplemented by those stupid players wagering on my throw outs.


"Are the contenders I actually bet returning significantly more money than the contenders I do not bet?"

If not, then I would be better off flipping a coin to decide who I ahould bet among my contenders.


My point is that if you are armed with knowledge like this then you at least know where to start to "improve your handicapping."

Capper Al
08-08-2014, 12:40 PM
Time to go back to the soup analogy. (Please don't forget that I have kept records and always refer to my Twinspires for actual wagering information.)

Here's why those of us who keep records aren't rich. The process is similar to making soup from your old grandmother's recipe. You can make the soup but you can't taste is an analogy to making a formula or handicapping method and really not knowing why or why not it's working.

You are given a hot corner in New York city to sell your soup. Sometimes sales are up and sometimes sales are down. You wonder if something is wrong on the off weeks. Maybe my meat is off or maybe the salt varies and is not an exact science but really needs tasting, but like handicapping you'll never really know why you won or lost, so it is you can't taste your soup to know. When sales are off you wonder maybe it's the salt? Do I need more salt or less salt? You really don't know because you can't taste your soup. You can experiment with an endless amount of ingredients and adjustments but you really don't know. That's the farce that one really doesn't know.

thaskalos
08-08-2014, 01:03 PM
Time to go back to the soup analogy. (Please don't forget that I have kept records and always refer to my Twinspires for actual wagering information.)

Here's why those of us who keep records aren't rich. The process is similar to making soup from your old grandmother's recipe. You can make the soup but you can't taste is an analogy to making a formula or handicapping method and really not knowing why or why not it's working.

You are given a hot corner in New York city to sell your soup. Sometimes sales are up and sometimes sales are down. You wonder if something is wrong on the off weeks. Maybe my meat is off or maybe the salt varies and is not an exact science but really needs tasting, but like handicapping you'll never really know why you won or lost, so it is you can't taste your soup to know. When sales are off you wonder maybe it's the salt? Do I need more salt or less salt? You really don't know because you can't taste your soup. You can experiment with an endless amount of ingredients and adjustments but you really don't know. That's the farce that one really doesn't know.

We are GAMBLING, Al...we are not standing in a corner selling soup. When you gamble...you win some and you lose some. That's why they call it GAMBLING. If you won all the time...then they'd call it something else.

All games...whether athletic or speculative in nature, require a certain set of skill. To excel in baseball or basketball...you need great hand/eye coordination. In soccer...you need great quickness of foot. And in gambling...you need the ability to persevere through adversity. In horse racing, you will lose more often than you will win...and you'll have to find a way to deal with that.

Constant tinkering after every string of losses is a sign either of immaturity, or of complete disconnection with the game...IMO. You can't turn this game into something it's not. You can only change yourself...

Capper Al
08-08-2014, 01:44 PM
We are GAMBLING, Al...we are not standing in a corner selling soup. When you gamble...you win some and you lose some. That's why they call it GAMBLING. If you won all the time...then they'd call it something else.

All games...whether athletic or speculative in nature, require a certain set of skill. To excel in baseball or basketball...you need great hand/eye coordination. In soccer...you need great quickness of foot. And in gambling...you need the ability to persevere through adversity. In horse racing, you will lose more often than you will win...and you'll have to find a way to deal with that.

Constant tinkering after every string of losses is a sign either of immaturity, or of complete disconnection with the game...IMO. You can't turn this game into something it's not. You can only change yourself...

I agree with most of what you say, but the soup analog only proves that we are blind to our results. We can quantify speed or earnings per start, etc. because this data is upfront in the process and can be seen for what it is. After we grind the sausage and make our soup, all identity is lost for a cause and effect analysis. After the fact, we can only say that we are winning on place bets or winning at AP for now. But why, we don't know.

thaskalos
08-08-2014, 01:59 PM
I agree with most of what you say, but the soup analog only proves that we are blind to our results. We can quantify speed or earnings per start, etc. because this data is upfront in the process and can be seen for what it is. After we grind the sausage and make our soup, all identity is lost for a cause and effect analysis. After the fact, we can only say that we are winning on place bets or winning at AP for now. But why, we don't know.

That's why gambling is an endeavor where hard and fast rules don't apply. In gambling, the feedback that we get from our actions does not properly align with logic...the way it does in other games of skill.

In tennis or golf...you hit a shot the right way and you expect the right result. In gambling...you take a shot the right way, and you miss wildly. Or you take a shot the WRONG way...and you score spectacularly. In gambling, the short-term results do not logically coincide with the player's level of proficiency in the game...and the player can get confused. Winning players can get the impression that they are losers...while losing players can convince themselves that they are a lot better than they really are.

That's why record-keeping is important. It dispassionately shows you where you REALLY stand in the game.

Tom
08-08-2014, 02:34 PM
Originally Posted by Capper Al
Time to go back to the soup analogy. (Please don't forget that I have kept records and always refer to my Twinspires for actual wagering information.)

Maybe your records are telling you the truth and you don't like it so you are blaming them?

FocusWiz
08-08-2014, 03:35 PM
but if we are forced to use it, we need to think of it differently than how we are discussing it. Dave Schwartz gave some excellent perspectives (as always) and these may or may not apply to your situation, but I would think they should apply to most of the rest of us.

If we are making soup, then the rest of the world is judging it for us even if we never taste it, as if we are serving it in a restaurant. The restaurant down the street uses more salt. We add a double dose of salt, the sales go down, we triple the salt, it goes down further. We do not need to taste it to know that adding salt to our soup is not the solution, even if it works down the street. We may not have used any salt before so it was not even in our records, but it was a factor we decided to consider.

Especially since we are not ever tasting this soup, we cannot know what will and won't work best before we serve it (i.e. wager). It is only after the soup has been made and served that we derive any value from the decision process that went into making it. Either it is good or it isn't and the response will not be black and white, but more of a trend that is positive or negative. Despite the arguments to the contrary, I do not know how we would know if the soup is good or how to make it better without recordkeeping. Like soup, more isn't always better. A pinch of garlic makes sales improve. Two pinches makes people rave about it. Two thousand diced cloves makes it inedible. Seeing in the records the ratios used and the ultimate response is the only thing that we have to judge our decisions.

The only place I would agree that recordkeeping is a farce and you can simply rely on the Twinspires results is if you never change how you use the factors you use and are satisfied with both the selection and wagering decision process. Once you have achieved this nirvana, what do you need with records? They are useless. Your money just keeps piling up and there is nothing missing or unnecessary in the selection and wagering process.

I believe that is what most of us are missing in this thread.

For me, I am trying to improve these processes and identify what works and what doesn't. If you have achieved that, then the rest of us are blowing smoke. To use a dumber analogy, we are in Art Class 101 but corresponding with Michelangelo Buonorotti on how to select colors.

Robert Fischer
08-08-2014, 04:45 PM
You could build your whole game around record keeping if you wanted to.

I basically use record keeping for red flags, green flags and account balance.

Show Me the Wire
08-08-2014, 05:22 PM
I agree with most of what you say, but the soup analog only proves that we are blind to our results. We can quantify speed or earnings per start, etc. because this data is upfront in the process and can be seen for what it is. After we grind the sausage and make our soup, all identity is lost for a cause and effect analysis. After the fact, we can only say that we are winning on place bets or winning at AP for now. But why, we don't know.

You should know what type of sausage to grind. Different types of races have different major ingredients. Sometimes you don't have to grind sausage, at all. Depending on the race conditions and the population of the race the importance of the ingredients changes, as well as, the need to use or not use an ingredient.

traynor
08-08-2014, 08:45 PM
We are GAMBLING, Al...we are not standing in a corner selling soup. When you gamble...you win some and you lose some. That's why they call it GAMBLING. If you won all the time...then they'd call it something else.

All games...whether athletic or speculative in nature, require a certain set of skill. To excel in baseball or basketball...you need great hand/eye coordination. In soccer...you need great quickness of foot. And in gambling...you need the ability to persevere through adversity. In horse racing, you will lose more often than you will win...and you'll have to find a way to deal with that.

Constant tinkering after every string of losses is a sign either of immaturity, or of complete disconnection with the game...IMO. You can't turn this game into something it's not. You can only change yourself...

I think the use of the term "gambling" in reference to engagement in an activity at which one perceives--correctly or incorrectly--that one has an "advantage" is not really "gambling." Baccarat and craps are "gambling games." Blackjack, poker, and horse race betting--when engaged in by those who believe they have some "advantage" based on skill, experience, or inside information--is not in the same category as real "gambling."

Consider your dismissal of "foreign races." If one is gambling, one can gamble every bit as easily on races without the comfort (real or imagined) of known, familiar Equibase data files. I have no real opinion about a more appropriate term. Perhaps "engagement in an activity perceived by the masses as gambling, but only engaged in due to a subjective belief that one's skill, experience, or inside information creates an advantage that reduces the risk to a minimum, and reduces the associated excitement level to the equivalent of doing jigsaw puzzles." Not as romantic or poetic, but possibly more accurate.

raybo
08-08-2014, 09:10 PM
I think the use of the term "gambling" in reference to engagement in an activity at which one perceives--correctly or incorrectly--that one has an "advantage" is not really "gambling." Baccarat and craps are "gambling games." Blackjack, poker, and horse race betting--when engaged in by those who believe they have some "advantage" based on skill, experience, or inside information--is not in the same category as real "gambling."

Consider your dismissal of "foreign races." If one is gambling, one can gamble every bit as easily on races without the comfort (real or imagined) of known, familiar Equibase data files. I have no real opinion about a more appropriate term. Perhaps "engagement in an activity perceived by the masses as gambling, but only engaged in due to a subjective belief that one's skill, experience, or inside information creates an advantage that reduces the risk to a minimum, and reduces the associated excitement level to the equivalent of doing jigsaw puzzles." Not as romantic or poetic, but possibly more accurate.

The "gambling" connotation thing has been argued forever here, and other sites. I have always believed that if you are a long term winning player then you aren't gambling, you're investing with a "vetted" positive expectation. But, that is not the subject of this thread, which is about whether or not record keeping is important.

Many find "ranges" of odds that are profitable at some tracks, and not at others, which means that record keeping does serve a very important function regarding our play. Over time, it tells us where we should be concentrating our efforts and where we should be more conservative or abstain completely.

If all you look at is your ADW report, you're only looking at the basics of your play, not the specifics of it. If, for example, you don't know that maiden turf routes at Saratoga is where 75% your profit is coming from, then you are throwing away a lot of money on some of the other bets you are making. if you know that you lose money long term on "gd" and "my" surfaces, then you're throwing away money betting those surfaces. The list goes on and on.

Maximillion
08-08-2014, 09:37 PM
If all you look at is your ADW report, you're only looking at the basics of your play, not the specifics of it.

100% agree......anyone here can make(or learn how to make) a spreadsheet.

traynor
08-09-2014, 12:18 AM
100% agree......anyone here can make(or learn how to make) a spreadsheet.

I think that records comprised of small samples of races--no matter how "accurately" those records are kept--are pretty much worthless. Attempting to define reality by the results of the last 100, 200, or 300 races is an exercise in futilty. So Capper Al is right on that point--"record keeping" as ordinarily defined by the average bettor is a farce. Lots of pretty numbers and colorful screenshots, but essentially worthless as predictors.

The "trends" supposedly "discovered" are little more than a sprinkling of data points in a random distribution that "seem" to form a pattern. Sprinkle in a few more races (as in "try to apply the trend in the real world by betting on it") and the trend disappears, while a "new trend" seems to appear. Not worth much.

thaskalos
08-09-2014, 12:58 AM
I think the use of the term "gambling" in reference to engagement in an activity at which one perceives--correctly or incorrectly--that one has an "advantage" is not really "gambling." Baccarat and craps are "gambling games." Blackjack, poker, and horse race betting--when engaged in by those who believe they have some "advantage" based on skill, experience, or inside information--is not in the same category as real "gambling."

Consider your dismissal of "foreign races." If one is gambling, one can gamble every bit as easily on races without the comfort (real or imagined) of known, familiar Equibase data files. I have no real opinion about a more appropriate term. Perhaps "engagement in an activity perceived by the masses as gambling, but only engaged in due to a subjective belief that one's skill, experience, or inside information creates an advantage that reduces the risk to a minimum, and reduces the associated excitement level to the equivalent of doing jigsaw puzzles." Not as romantic or poetic, but possibly more accurate.
I have a close friend who has elevated himself to the level of being one of the best poker players in the world. He started in the game by making a modest deposit in an online poker site...and has parlayed that to the kind of bankroll that allows him to now sit in some of the biggest cash games to be spread in a casino...where he wins with amazing regularity. I asked him if he considers himself to be a gambler or an investor...and he answered without hesitation that he is a gambler.

This poker player is also responsible for introducing me to the best cash-game poker player that the poker world has ever known -- an experience for which I will be forever grateful. Wherever poker players congregate and talk about the game's best players...the name of the late David "Chip" Reese is at the top of everybody's list. I met Chip Reese at a Bellagio restaurant a few months before his untimely death...and we had a great conversation. I asked him if he considered himself to be a "gambler"...and he laughingly told me that he couldn't think of a better way to describe himself.

David Sklansky is poker's premier theorist...and the game's most prolific author. I spent two days with him at the Bellagio sportsbook...where we had a blast. I got into a lengthy philosophical conversation with him about the investor/gambler argument when it comes to advantage play...and he told me that anyone who denies that he is gambler either hasn't been playing long enough -- or doesn't play for money that matter. He too emphatically stated that he counts himself among the gamblers.

Now...I am not particularly fond of the word "gambler"...or the stigma that it's associated with. I would much rather call myself an "investor". But I feel foolish saying that I am investing...when these three legendary players all agree that GAMBLING is what we do when we walk to the betting window, or pull up a seat around the green baize.

raybo
08-09-2014, 01:20 AM
I have a close friend who has elevated himself to the level of being one of the best poker players in the world. He started in the game by making a modest deposit in an online poker site...and has parlayed that to the kind of bankroll that allows him to now sit in some of the biggest cash games to be spread in a casino...where he wins with amazing regularity. I asked him if he considers himself to be a gambler or an investor...and he answered without hesitation that he is a gambler.

This poker player is also responsible for introducing me to the best cash-game poker player that the poker world has ever known -- an experience for which I will be forever grateful. Wherever poker players congregate and talk about the game's best players...the name of the late David "Chip" Reese is at the top of everybody's list. I met Chip Reese at a Bellagio restaurant a few months before his untimely death...and we had a great conversation. I asked him if he considered himself to be a "gambler"...and he laughingly told me that he couldn't think of a better way to describe himself.

David Sklansky is poker's premier theorist...and the game's most prolific author. I spent two days with him at the Bellagio sportsbook...where we had a blast. I got into a lengthy philosophical conversation with him about the investor/gambler argument when it comes to advantage play...and he told me that anyone who denies that he is gambler either hasn't been playing long enough -- or doesn't play for money that matter. He too emphatically stated that he counts himself among the gamblers.

Now...I am not particularly fond of the word "gambler"...or the stigma that it's associated with. I would much rather call myself an "investor". But I feel foolish saying that I am investing...when these three legendary players all agree that GAMBLING is what we do when we walk to the betting window, or pull up a seat around the green baize.

I think that the time period determines the difference between gambling and investing. If you're talking about a single race or a single race card, or even an entire month, then yes, you are gambling, because you have no idea which of your individual bets will make you money. But, if you know that long term, whether to you that means a year, 2 years, 5 years, 15 years, etc., you will have made more income than you have spent, then you're much closer to being an investor than a gambler. The term "gambler" carries so many different connotations, to so many different people, and even the public as a whole, one could probably apply that word to an investor, regardless of the vehicle, as well. But, if you're talking about horse racing, the term "investor" is much harder to apply, because the vast majority of players lose money over time, and have absolutely no long term edge/advantage in the game.

Capper Al
08-09-2014, 08:26 AM
I think that records comprised of small samples of races--no matter how "accurately" those records are kept--are pretty much worthless. Attempting to define reality by the results of the last 100, 200, or 300 races is an exercise in futilty. So Capper Al is right on that point--"record keeping" as ordinarily defined by the average bettor is a farce. Lots of pretty numbers and colorful screenshots, but essentially worthless as predictors.

The "trends" supposedly "discovered" are little more than a sprinkling of data points in a random distribution that "seem" to form a pattern. Sprinkle in a few more races (as in "try to apply the trend in the real world by betting on it") and the trend disappears, while a "new trend" seems to appear. Not worth much.

Absolutely true. Keeping records for managing your budget is different than doing analysis on handicapping systems. Wow! Someone agrees.

Tom
08-09-2014, 09:36 AM
I think that records comprised of small samples of races--no matter how "accurately" those records are kept--are pretty much worthless. Attempting to define reality by the results of the last 100, 200, or 300 races is an exercise in futilty. So Capper Al is right on that point--"record keeping" as ordinarily defined by the average bettor is a farce. Lots of pretty numbers and colorful screenshots, but essentially worthless as predictors.

Totally disagree. You nor Al know what records people keep so your opinion on them are what is worthless. Neither of you can speak to anything but your own records and how you use them. Plenty of people out here are proving you both wrong every day.

raybo
08-09-2014, 11:02 AM
Absolutely true. Keeping records for managing your budget is different than doing analysis on handicapping systems. Wow! Someone agrees.

Read his post again Al, there is a qualifier, "small sample". The only one here who agrees with you, is you.

porchy44
08-09-2014, 11:16 AM
Constant tinkering after every string of losses is a sign either of immaturity, or of complete disconnection with the game...IMO. You can't turn this game into something it's not. You can only change yourself...

Then how do you improve without the tinkering and post mortems ?

thaskalos
08-09-2014, 01:02 PM
Then how do you improve without the tinkering and post mortems ?
The constant tinkerers are not merely trying to improve; what they are really trying to do is build the "perfect" method...one that is not subjected to the indignity of losing streaks. They fail to realize that consistent winning is a MYTH in this game...and that ALL players lose more often than they win. Our results will fluctuate wildly from month to month...and we will suffer aggravating losing streaks. We have to deal with that.

There is a big difference between tinkering to try to improve...and getting disenchanted with our "trusted" method of play after every losing streak. There are many players in this game who go over every single losing race, as if losing a race is equivalent to making a mistake. They zero in on the winner who beat them...and try to find clues to explain why the winner won...clues which they hope to put to use in the upcoming race. This isn't "trying to improve"; this is LUNACY! This is why Tom Ainslie so astutely observed that "after every race...another system is born".

After a certain point in the player's development, a loss is just a loss...and all you can do is turn the page.

Show Me the Wire
08-09-2014, 03:11 PM
Then how do you improve without the tinkering and post mortems ?

First understand why a horse loses. Taken from Aiinslie;

A) The horse was not as fit as you thought,

B) some other horse surprised you with its fitness

c) unexpected pace of the race affected your horse or

D) bad ride.


The idea is to know why your horse lost. You may not have picked the wrong based on handicapping per C and D above. You may have picked the wrong horse if A or B above because you overrated a horse and underrated. If it is A or B you need to work on your skill in assessing a horses condition. If you consistently miss on A and B you need to tweak your skills.

C and D does not impact your skill, it is a result of chance or randomness. If you focus on why another horse won you can be misled. The other horse won either by being fitter, unexpected pace, or because your animal got a poor ride. In other words it is mostly randomness of the race, which can cause a horse to win.

You can't qualify randomness and its impact in determining why a horse won. Just accept the fact of poor rides, unexpected pace, other random events and work on why you, if you do, constantly and continually overrate or underrate certain types of horses. If not like Thask stated you will be constantly inventing new systems and not improve your skills.

A loss is a loss and move on.

traynor
08-09-2014, 03:24 PM
Totally disagree. You nor Al know what records people keep so your opinion on them are what is worthless. Neither of you can speak to anything but your own records and how you use them. Plenty of people out here are proving you both wrong every day.

And there is a whole world full of mathematicians, statisticians, and researchers who dismiss such "proof" as nonsense.

traynor
08-09-2014, 03:33 PM
The constant tinkerers are not merely trying to improve; what they are really trying to do is build the "perfect" method...one that is not subjected to the indignity of losing streaks. They fail to realize that consistent winning is a MYTH in this game...and that ALL players lose more often than they win. Our results will fluctuate wildly from month to month...and we will suffer aggravating losing streaks. We have to deal with that.

There is a big difference between tinkering to try to improve...and getting disenchanted with our "trusted" method of play after every losing streak. There are many players in this game who go over every single losing race, as if losing a race is equivalent to making a mistake. They zero in on the winner who beat them...and try to find clues to explain why the winner won...clues which they hope to put to use in the upcoming race. This isn't "trying to improve"; this is LUNACY! This is why Tom Ainslie so astutely observed that "after every race...another system is born".

After a certain point in the player's development, a loss is just a loss...and all you can do is turn the page.

I think you may believe you are honestly reporting on a fundamental aspect of external reality. However, it seems you are only reporting your subjective opinion of a (very) limited subset of that external reality. To extrapolate from that to absolutes that (in theory) affect every other bettor in the world is a very large leap. No offense is intended.

raybo
08-09-2014, 03:35 PM
And there is a whole world full of mathematicians, statisticians, and researchers who dismiss such "proof" as nonsense.

So, what does that tell you about what "a whole world full of mathematicians, statisticians, and researchers" know about being successful in racing? If all it took to be successful in this game was to become one of those academicians there'd be a whole lot more people on this board, and other places, who are successful horse players.

Tom
08-09-2014, 03:43 PM
And there is a whole world full of mathematicians, statisticians, and researchers who dismiss such "proof" as nonsense.

Name two and show their proof.

All that mattes is the money you win.
You talk a lot about racing, but that seems be all you do - talk about it.
Theory and a dollar gets you any size coffee you want at McDonalds.

Now you are mind reader and know what others are doing?
I laughed.

thaskalos
08-09-2014, 03:44 PM
I think you may believe you are honestly reporting on a fundamental aspect of external reality. However, it seems you are only reporting your subjective opinion of a (very) limited subset of that external reality. To extrapolate from that to absolutes that (in theory) affect every other bettor in the world is a very large leap. No offense is intended.
My intention never is to mislead; I only relay my own experience...which is vast and varied.

IMO...the only horseplayers who can expect to cash more tickets than they throw away are the show-bettors. Of course...there is no shortage of geniuses on the internet -- no offense meant.

traynor
08-09-2014, 03:49 PM
A similar situation exists in regard to small sample models. Some may get lucky and honestly believe they have made some wondrous discovery of Ultimate Truth that "proves" the mathematicians, statisticians, researchers, and more than a few business analysts who are paid obscene amounts of money for their expertise are all wrong.

I don't recommend that such believers offer themselves for hire to the outside world based on their experience and expertise in data analysis and modeling.

traynor
08-09-2014, 04:00 PM
My intention never is to mislead; I only relate my own experience...which is vast and varied.

IMO...the only horseplayers who can expect to cash more tickets than they throw away are the show-bettors. Of course...there is no shortage of geniuses on the internet -- no offense meant.

Who said anything about "cash more tickets"? You wrote, "ALL players lose more often than they win." I cannot imagine anyone "keeping score" on a bet by bet basis. If that was your meaning, I apologize for misinterpreting.

I do not believe in extended losing streaks. Or chasing rainbows. I cannot imagine why anyone would continue betting if he or she were losing (over an extended period of time). Personal experience of previous event sequences is no basis for such behavior. One may have been unusually lucky over some finite period of events, and so believe that luck can be depended on in the future. Luck only gets one so far. When it runs out, something more substantial is needed.

Spiderman
08-09-2014, 04:06 PM
Most, if not all, of this thread's comments regard keeping record of wins and losses for types of wagers and a variety of methods or system plays. I keep a different sort of record, that of horses to play in the future. My ADW and bank statement are sufficient knowledge for profit and loss.

Maximillion
08-09-2014, 04:08 PM
First understand why a horse loses. Taken from Aiinslie;

A) The horse was not as fit as you thought,

B) some other horse surprised you with its fitness

c) unexpected pace of the race affected your horse or

D) bad ride.


The idea is to know why your horse lost. You may not have picked the wrong based on handicapping per C and D above. You may have picked the wrong horse if A or B above because you overrated a horse and underrated. If it is A or B you need to work on your skill in assessing a horses condition. If you consistently miss on A and B you need to tweak your skills.

C and D does not impact your skill, it is a result of chance or randomness. If you focus on why another horse won you can be misled. The other horse won either by being fitter, unexpected pace, or because your animal got a poor ride. In other words it is mostly randomness of the race, which can cause a horse to win.

You can't qualify randomness and its impact in determining why a horse won. Just accept the fact of poor rides, unexpected pace, other random events and work on why you, if you do, constantly and continually overrate or underrate certain types of horses. If not like Thask stated you will be constantly inventing new systems and not improve your skills.

A loss is a loss and move on.

Something like this can be easily put in a spreadsheet,and its a nice example of getting more detailed in your records.

I also keep separate records for bets I decide NOT to make.
Certain horses have traits that I personally dont like.....my records tell me that over a large amount of races, I am losing money on said type of horse, so I dont get (too) upset when that 20-1 shot that I eliminated comes rolling home.

traynor
08-09-2014, 04:17 PM
Something like this can be easily put in a spreadsheet,and its a nice example of getting more detailed in your records.

I also keep separate records for bets I decide NOT to make.
Certain horses have traits that I personally dont like.....my records tell me that over a large amount of races, I am losing money on said type of horse, so I dont get (too) upset when that 20-1 shot that I eliminated comes rolling home.

Good advice. It is fairly simple to track the relationship between win percentage and odds. It is tough (at first) to pick a horse and have it steal a race at 20-1--when you didn't bet it. Once you realize that it costs you $74 in wagers to catch one of those 20-1 shots, life gets MUCH easier. Not to mention less stressful.

traynor
08-09-2014, 04:20 PM
My intention never is to mislead; I only relay my own experience...which is vast and varied.

IMO...the only horseplayers who can expect to cash more tickets than they throw away are the show-bettors. Of course...there is no shortage of geniuses on the internet -- no offense meant.
You may recall a previous discussion, in which Anderson's three years of full-time blackjack play (involving a fairly sustantial number of individual betting events) was dismissed by Schlesinger as "statistically irrelevant." That is not a situation unique to blackjack, which is highly structured, with a relatively small variety of possible outcomes. It applies even more strongly to less structured wagering events like horse racing.

Rather than getting into a long involved discussion of the whys and wherefores, I recommend that anyone interested in serious wagering take at least an introductory level community college course in basic statistics and/or research methods. It will provide a great opportunity to stand up in front of the class and defend his or her small sample and associated opinions. And a relatively painless reality check.

thaskalos
08-09-2014, 04:25 PM
Who said anything about "cash more tickets"? You wrote, "ALL players lose more often than they win." I cannot imagine anyone "keeping score" on a bet by bet basis. If that was your meaning, I apologize for misinterpreting.


Yes...when I said that all players lose more often than they win, I was talking about individual bets -- not overall results.

Did you really expect me to say that all the players were overall losers?

TrifectaMike
08-09-2014, 05:53 PM
And there is a whole world full of mathematicians, statisticians, and researchers who dismiss such "proof" as nonsense.

There are real world reasons as to why chief executives are statistical modelers in large betting syndicates.

Mike

johnhannibalsmith
08-09-2014, 09:57 PM
That's why gambling is an endeavor where hard and fast rules don't apply. In gambling, the feedback that we get from our actions does not properly align with logic...the way it does in other games of skill.

In tennis or golf...you hit a shot the right way and you expect the right result. In gambling...you take a shot the right way, and you miss wildly. Or you take a shot the WRONG way...and you score spectacularly. In gambling, the short-term results do not logically coincide with the player's level of proficiency in the game...and the player can get confused. Winning players can get the impression that they are losers...while losing players can convince themselves that they are a lot better than they really are.

That's why record-keeping is important. It dispassionately shows you where you REALLY stand in the game.

What a great reply.

Capper Al
08-10-2014, 08:56 AM
Read his post again Al, there is a qualifier, "small sample". The only one here who agrees with you, is you.

It's pretty hard to get a large sample on any race types that we handicap. My question to you is, are you rich? Your logic is simple and undeniable, and easy to implement. So it either works or doesn't.

Capper Al
08-10-2014, 09:00 AM
Then how do you improve without the tinkering and post mortems ?

One looks at the input data and sees why or why not the formula worked, not the other way around by shifting through bets.

Tom
08-10-2014, 10:38 AM
t's pretty hard to get a large sample on any race types that we handicap. My question to you is, are you rich? Your logic is simple and undeniable, and easy to implement. So it either works or doesn't.

So NOW the criteria is are your rich?
I just made an entry in my records - avoid these brain dead thread Al starts. He starts them because he must be lonely, not because he wants any answers.
Filed it under WOT.

Capper Al
08-10-2014, 01:11 PM
So NOW the criteria is are your rich?
I just made an entry in my records - avoid these brain dead thread Al starts. He starts them because he must be lonely, not because he wants any answers.
Filed it under WOT.

Why are you getting personal? At least I make a statement that you can agree with me or not. You posts in general lack substance. You really take a stand. I'd rather be wrong then a sissy.

raybo
08-10-2014, 01:20 PM
So NOW the criteria is are your rich?
I just made an entry in my records - avoid these brain dead thread Al starts. He starts them because he must be lonely, not because he wants any answers.
Filed it under WOT.

LOL - I agree totally, but I guess the side of me that tries to protect the inexperienced player just forces me to join in these discussions.

I didn't answer Al's question because it makes no difference if I'm rich or not. 35 years of "samples" should be enough for anyone, except Traynor. :lol:

Capper Al
08-10-2014, 01:39 PM
LOL - I agree totally, but I guess the side of me that tries to protect the inexperienced player just forces me to join in these discussions.

I didn't answer Al's question because it makes no difference if I'm rich or not. 35 years of "samples" should be enough for anyone, except Traynor. :lol:

My experience tells me that you are probably wrong. A few year's back my place bets were hot and at good odds also. I even had at least a 100 hits. Now using the same process, I can't hit them. There's just too many confoundi ng variables to make predictions based on the rear end of a method. One has to figure it out from the front end with the data going in.

TrifectaMike
08-10-2014, 01:45 PM
My experience tells me that you are probably wrong. A few year's back my place bets were hot and at good odds also. I even had at least a 100 hits. Now using the same process, I can't hit them. There's just too many confoundi ng variables to make predictions based on the rear end of a method. One has to figure it out from the front end with the data going in.

Wow Al! I rarely agree with anything you say, but this, "There's just too many confoundi ng variables to make predictions based on the rear end of a method. One has to figure it out from the front end with the data going in" is good shit!

Mike

raybo
08-10-2014, 01:52 PM
My experience tells me that you are probably wrong. A few year's back my place bets were hot and at good odds also. I even had at least a 100 hits. Now using the same process, I can't hit them. There's just too many confoundi ng variables to make predictions based on the rear end of a method. One has to figure it out from the front end with the data going in.

All that means is that your record keeping, just like your handicapping and wagering, must evolve over time. Nobody is saying that once you think you have the answer, that the answer isn't going to change over time, of course it's going to change. IMO, the reason that many older, highly experienced players lose money is that they are still trying to do what they did 30 or 40 years ago.

You should have noticed that I stated "samples", not "sample", in my post. That was done intentionally, because a single sample of thousands and thousands of races means very little regarding the immediate future, but hundreds of smaller "samples" evolves your model, to keep up with any changes that invariably happen over the long term.

So, whether you're talking about handicapping, or wagering, or systems, or methods, or record keeping, one can continue to evolve everything by keeping track of everything involved, over a multitude of small, time sensitive samples. And, this certainly applies to record keeping, whether you believe it or not.

Tom
08-10-2014, 02:06 PM
You posts in general lack substance. You really take a stand.

In typical Al fashion, he contradicts himself in the next sentence. :lol:

It appears racing has two camps - players and talkers.

Capper Al
08-10-2014, 06:24 PM
In typical Al fashion, he contradicts himself in the next sentence. :lol:

It appears racing has two camps - players and talkers.

I meant to type rarely instead of really. The sentence should of read that you rarely take a stand. And your last post still says nothing. You're empty. Nothing in you.

Capper Al
08-10-2014, 06:30 PM
All that means is that your record keeping, just like your handicapping and wagering, must evolve over time. Nobody is saying that once you think you have the answer, that the answer isn't going to change over time, of course it's going to change. IMO, the reason that many older, highly experienced players lose money is that they are still trying to do what they did 30 or 40 years ago.

You should have noticed that I stated "samples", not "sample", in my post. That was done intentionally, because a single sample of thousands and thousands of races means very little regarding the immediate future, but hundreds of smaller "samples" evolves your model, to keep up with any changes that invariably happen over the long term.

So, whether you're talking about handicapping, or wagering, or systems, or methods, or record keeping, one can continue to evolve everything by keeping track of everything involved, over a multitude of small, time sensitive samples. And, this certainly applies to record keeping, whether you believe it or not.

Raybo,

Generally I like your post. But you are so statis-quo. What I do is challenge the status-quo. I believe that to win one must challenge ideas. You got to have balls if you are going to beat this game. That means think differently at times.

Capper Al
08-10-2014, 06:35 PM
Wow Al! I rarely agree with anything you say, but this, "There's just too many confoundi ng variables to make predictions based on the rear end of a method. One has to figure it out from the front end with the data going in" is good shit!

Mike

Mike,

I have been too hard on you and others like myself who come from a mathematical background. In the end, I follow my stats classes when implementing my ideas. Of course, not to the depth that I perceive you and Trayon do.

Tom
08-10-2014, 06:47 PM
So when do you three racing gods ever post a pick?
Or do you just talk about it?

Empty, Al?
Read some of your threads. :lol:

Capper Al
08-10-2014, 07:00 PM
So when do you three racing gods ever post a pick?
Or do you just talk about it?

Empty, Al?
Read some of your threads. :lol:

You brought it on. Why to do attack? Are you lonely? You spend more time on the board than anyone. You out do me by a lot.

barn32
08-10-2014, 09:06 PM
David Sklansky is poker's premier theorist...and the game's most prolific author. I spent two days with him at the Bellagio sportsbook...where we had a blast...Did you get to watch him bet five horses to place in the same race?

raybo
08-10-2014, 10:08 PM
Did you get to watch him bet five horses to place in the same race?

LOL - although that would seem extreme, sometimes they just flat give you something. Why not take it?

TrifectaMike
08-11-2014, 01:47 PM
So when do you three racing gods ever post a pick?
Or do you just talk about it?

Empty, Al?
Read some of your threads. :lol:

Tom, is that comment in reference to me?

Mike

Tom
08-11-2014, 01:54 PM
Should it?

raybo
08-11-2014, 01:59 PM
Raybo,

Generally I like your post. But you are so statis-quo. What I do is challenge the status-quo. I believe that to win one must challenge ideas. You got to have balls if you are going to beat this game. That means think differently at times.

Keeping good records is not "status-quo", if you started a poll, and everyone told the absolute truth, you would find that keeping good records is the exception among players, not the rule. I suspect that many don't keep records because they don't really want to know how much they're losing, and many of the others are just flat lazy, or too busy betting every race to keep records.

Thinking "outside the box" is one of my strong points, by the way.

Capper Al
08-11-2014, 02:17 PM
Keeping good records is not "status-quo", if you started a poll, and everyone told the absolute truth, you would find that keeping good records is the exception among players, not the rule. I suspect that many don't keep records because they don't really want to know how much they're losing, and many of the others are just flat lazy, or too busy betting every race to keep records.

Thinking "outside the box" is one of my strong points, by the way.

I meant was with the current intellectual trend. I agree most handicapper's don't keep records. What you did was come to Tom's resue after he started getting personal, and I was only defending myself. You should of stayed out of it. It's bad enough that Tom gets away this behavior. Like I said, I like your posts.

raybo
08-11-2014, 02:20 PM
I meant was with the current intellectual trend. I agree most handicapper's don't keep records. What you did was come to Tom's resue after he started getting personal, and I was only defending myself. You should of stayed out of it. It's bad enough that Tom gets away this behavior. Like I said, I like your posts.

I wasn't coming to Tom's aide, he certainly doesn't need me to do that, he's a big boy.

Capper Al
08-11-2014, 02:22 PM
Ultimately, Tom has been successful at closing out this thread. I think when his head starts to hurt and the concepts are getting too hard for him he throws out a bomb and gets off topic and personal. This was a good topic, and I am glad that I connected with a few of you.

Tom
08-11-2014, 03:41 PM
Ultimately, Tom has been successful at closing out this thread. I think when his head starts to hurt and the concepts are getting too hard for him he throws out a bomb and gets off topic and personal. This was a good topic, and I am glad that I connected with a few of you.

No hard concepts here - many of us are winning and keeping records.
You don't have that ability.

thaskalos
08-11-2014, 03:56 PM
No hard concepts here - many of us are winning and keeping records.


Yeah...but I bet you ain't rich. :p

Capper Al
08-11-2014, 07:36 PM
No hard concepts here - many of us are winning and keeping records.
You don't have that ability.

I guess you missed the shift in the conversation to what one does based on the results from the record keeping. Does your head hurt? :lol:

Cratos
08-11-2014, 10:15 PM
I am coming late to this thread, but I want to say loud and clear that I keep records and I keep them because I don't trust everything to my memory; and another reason I keep records is because I always want to keep my database up to date.

Tom
08-11-2014, 10:22 PM
I guess you missed the shift in the conversation to what one does based on the results from the record keeping.

Does your head hurt?

1. Handicapping 101
2. Yes, but I put you back on ignore and will stop soon.

TonyMLake
08-12-2014, 03:01 AM
I think that records comprised of small samples of races--no matter how "accurately" those records are kept--are pretty much worthless. Attempting to define reality by the results of the last 100, 200, or 300 races is an exercise in futilty. So Capper Al is right on that point--"record keeping" as ordinarily defined by the average bettor is a farce. Lots of pretty numbers and colorful screenshots, but essentially worthless as predictors.

The "trends" supposedly "discovered" are little more than a sprinkling of data points in a random distribution that "seem" to form a pattern. Sprinkle in a few more races (as in "try to apply the trend in the real world by betting on it") and the trend disappears, while a "new trend" seems to appear. Not worth much.

I agree in the majority, but respectfully disagree for the more grisly of us. Here's why:

If you look at the real statistical data kept since perhaps the 18th century, THERE IS ONLY ONE STATISTICALLY WINNING BET. That's an odds on favorite to place in a graded stakes. Sorry folks. This is what *all* the data kept has shown over the longest sample available.

However, short term "boutique" or "window" or "snapshot" analysis does indeed produce dollar value.

Why?

For one cynical example, if you go to the same track every day for a season, somewhere midway through the season, you'll learn who the cheaters are. Just knowing which jockeys will throw a race can make you a literal fortune. It's a VERY small sample, relatively... and it WONT last... but it is has OH SO MUCH value during its window.

Other boutique data might be "an old nag" who runs like hell on a muddy track. If you happen to know that your horse performs like Seattle Slew of the mud, well, you've got a piece of information that - although limited in duration and application - is exceptional in value.

As an interesting caveat to this: YOU CAN ONLY KNOW THAT YOU HAVE USEFUL SNAPSHOT DATA IF YOU ARE AN OTHERWISE EXCELLENT RECORD KEEPER.

So, go figure.

Just sayin

Capper Al
08-12-2014, 03:54 AM
I am coming late to this thread, but I want to say loud and clear that I keep records and I keep them because I don't trust everything to my memory; and another reason I keep records is because I always want to keep my database up to date.

This is a good reason to keep records. The farce is believing that we can improve game by picking wager types.

Capper Al
08-12-2014, 03:59 AM
1. Handicapping 101
2. Yes, but I put you back on ignore and will stop soon.

That hurt! :lol:

You are full of yourself. And I'd appreciate it if you did put me on your ignore list because your contributions are more destructive than positive. I'd prefer that you would stay out of my topics. You just can't handle difficult subjects.

Capper Al
08-12-2014, 04:06 AM
Record keeping for your personal use is helpful especially for budgeting and learning about yourself. The farce is in altering your handicapping based on information obtained from your records. If the game was simply picking your winning bets and playing them then there would be no need for anymore discussion.

davew
08-12-2014, 09:21 PM
Record keeping for your personal use is helpful especially for budgeting and learning about yourself. The farce is in altering your handicapping based on information obtained from your records. If the game was simply picking your winning bets and playing them then there would be no need for anymore discussion.

Is this the same guy who started this thread?


Record keeping has helped me by telling me what pools I lose the most in. Without changing my handicapping at all, just the pools I bet into has improved my results.

Dave Schwartz
08-12-2014, 11:29 PM
If you look at the real statistical data kept since perhaps the 18th century, THERE IS ONLY ONE STATISTICALLY WINNING BET. That's an odds on favorite to place in a graded stakes. Sorry folks. This is what *all* the data kept has shown over the longest sample available.

I cannot address whether the above statement was ever true but it is clearly not true now.

This goes back 9 years.


Graded Stakes.
201-PubChPLACE BETS
Field1 Field2 Starts Pays Pct $Net IV PIV
1/20 6 5 83.3 $1.75 4.75 0.75
1/9 14 13 92.9 $1.96 4.68 0.83
1/5 40 37 92.5 $2.06 5.49 0.96
1/3 79 64 81.0 $1.80 4.90 0.91
2/5 136 107 78.7 $1.82 5.11 0.94
1/2 138 108 78.3 $1.85 5.05 1.00
3/5 333 242 72.7 $1.81 4.71 1.02
4/5 434 288 66.4 $1.79 4.60 1.04

Total 1,180 864 73.2 $1.82 4.80 1.43

TonyMLake
08-13-2014, 12:59 AM
Wasn't that the posters point? Even nine years worth of data yields an "incorrect" result when compared to the total population of all horse races ever, and therefore is meaningless (from within the context of the broader assertion).

My point was the opposite, that short aberrations can indeed produce value before reverting to the mean.

As for the "truth" about the quoted statistic: if it is not "true" within your 1188 race sample, I won't belabor it- its completely consistent with my point that sample data might or might not match the "true" population. As for the truth of the assertion itself, I would like to source it to Dr Ziemba, circa 1984 if memory serves. Perhaps it was truer then from within his sample than it is now from within yours ;^)

Dark Horse
08-13-2014, 04:47 AM
Record keeping is simply another term for measuring. It's the basis for science. Some people don't like measuring, prefer the old ways, and go around in antiquated horse carts. Others dedicate themselves to precise measurement, insist on the best proportions, and end up zooming around in beamers. Bottomline? To each their own.

Tom
08-13-2014, 07:35 AM
My point was the opposite, that short aberrations can indeed produce value before reverting to the mean.

Bingo!
Now is how.

For me, long term is often two weeks.
Often less.

Dave Schwartz
08-13-2014, 07:39 AM
As for the "truth" about the quoted statistic: if it is not "true" within your 1188 race sample, I won't belabor it- its completely consistent with my point that sample data might or might not match the "true" population. As for the truth of the assertion itself, I would like to source it to Dr Ziemba, circa 1984 if memory serves. Perhaps it was truer then from within his sample than it is now from within yours ;^)

I am not trying to be argumentative but I am not understanding your meaning. Please explain.

It sounds a lot like, "If I had been wagering for the last 30 years I would have been profitable but now it doesn't work and that doesn't matter because I will still make money with it."

If so, I would say that you are in denial.

You cannot make money on something that worked 2 decades ago but loses now.

TonyMLake
08-13-2014, 04:13 PM
No, I'm saying quite the opposite. Your data is a perfect example. One doesn't have to be a statistician to realize it's not quite representative of the whole population of horse racing ever. Why?

Your 1/9 and 1/20 stated odds aren't even mathematically significant. The 1/5 barely is. For the other 5 data points, it's obvious the trend line for $Net doesn't correlate exactly as we'd expect with the stated odds column... note the up and down pricing... and yet you are confident that your model has predictive power... AND SO AM I, because there is obvious predictive meaning behind it even though there is an incomplete data set.

I'm confident that if you look at horse racing and include the ENTIRE population of horse races (every track every surface every condition every type) you will find only a handful of statistics, AND NONE OF THEM CAN POSSIBLY PRODUCE VALUE because this is ultimately a (nearly) zero sum game (not to mention track take out). If you consider EVERY stat, you will always end up back at Zipf's law, which applies to the number of times a horse will win based on the tote board at post time. (the favorite wins twice as often as the second favorite, three times as often as the third favorite...) and not much else.

Indeed... I'll go so far as to say that it is ONLY in the outliers and aberrations where we will find value over time.

But maybe I'm wrong. What do you all think?

Dave Schwartz
08-13-2014, 07:26 PM
I think that you are assuming (incorrectly) that racing does not change.

lansdale
08-13-2014, 07:38 PM
No, I'm saying quite the opposite. Your data is a perfect example. One doesn't have to be a statistician to realize it's not quite representative of the whole population of horse racing ever. Why?

Your 1/9 and 1/20 stated odds aren't even mathematically significant. The 1/5 barely is. For the other 5 data points, it's obvious the trend line for $Net doesn't correlate exactly as we'd expect with the stated odds column... note the up and down pricing... and yet you are confident that your model has predictive power... AND SO AM I, because there is obvious predictive meaning behind it even though there is an incomplete data set.

I'm confident that if you look at horse racing and include the ENTIRE population of horse races (every track every surface every condition every type) you will find only a handful of statistics, AND NONE OF THEM CAN POSSIBLY PRODUCE VALUE because this is ultimately a (nearly) zero sum game (not to mention track take out). If you consider EVERY stat, you will always end up back at Zipf's law, which applies to the number of times a horse will win based on the tote board at post time. (the favorite wins twice as often as the second favorite, three times as often as the third favorite...) and not much else.

Indeed... I'll go so far as to say that it is ONLY in the outliers and aberrations where we will find value over time.

But maybe I'm wrong. What do you all think?

Hi TML,

Your post borders on the incoherent, but as far as I can piece together an argument, it seems to be that it's impossible for anyone to use statistical data (unless the database includes races dating from the time of the prehistoric eohippus) to build a profitable handicapping model. You seem not to realize that there are people who have done this very successfully, a number of them on this site. Unless you're a Bayesian (and I sense the answer is no), small samples are meaningless, as Traynor said. However sample sizes don't need to be infinite - Bill Benter did okay with ca. 2,500 races. That handicapping is a zero-sum game doesn't preclude the existence of winners, however small their number.

Cheers,

lansdale

TonyMLake
08-13-2014, 09:59 PM
What I said that was wrong was my application of Zipfs law. The real stat is the favorite wins 1/3, the second favorite wins 1/3 of the remaining 2/3 that's left,and etc. I was typing on lunch before but I believe this is the correct stat.

In any case, simply because a person believes the value is in the outliers does not in any way mean that outliers cannot be systematically identified. That's exactly what underlays and overlays are!

The sum entirety of my point was that I both agreed and disagreed with the OP. The whole population is often not descriptive of current sample trends, and vice versa. But the only way to know is with historical data from which to draw comparisons

Capper Al
08-14-2014, 07:03 AM
I think that you are assuming (incorrectly) that racing does not change.

This could be a thread on it's own.

Capper Al
08-14-2014, 07:07 AM
What I said that was wrong was my application of Zipfs law. The real stat is the favorite wins 1/3, the second favorite wins 1/3 of the remaining 2/3 that's left,and etc. I was typing on lunch before but I believe this is the correct stat.

In any case, simply because a person believes the value is in the outliers does not in any way mean that outliers cannot be systematically identified. That's exactly what underlays and overlays are!

The sum entirety of my point was that I both agreed and disagreed with the OP. The whole population is often not descriptive of current sample trends, and vice versa. But the only way to know is with historical data from which to draw comparisons

Things change a little and are explainable. For example, days since last raced changed but now some horses exercise in a race, in a workout, or back on the farm. The information is difficult to decipher for the handicapper, but the horses didn't change.

FocusWiz
08-14-2014, 10:38 AM
I think that you are assuming (incorrectly) that racing does not change.Racing definitely has changed.

One thing I have learned, since I was away from this for almost 20 years, is that not only does racing change, but wagering also changes. Situations where I used to have an edge no longer offer consistent value. Is that because the tracks changed, the training changed, the medications changed or racing itself has changed? I tend to think that it is at least partly because of the increasing availability of information and a change in how wagers are placed. In other words, I think the wagering has also changed.

In Economics, this is referred to as the Fallacy of Composition. The description they use is people seated at a parade or other event. If one person stands, that individual will have an advantage in view. As more and more stand, that advantage can diminish. Once all observers are standing, the net result is a redistribution of visibility, with some individuals better off than before and some worse and some no better nor worse.

Since we have parimutuel betting, if we, as bettors see an edge like this and we all have Place Wagers on favorites in graded stakes, through our actions, we will reduce or eliminate the profitability of that wager.

TonyMLake
08-14-2014, 11:01 AM
Well, this is my last comment on the matter, but my operational definition of "population" was to include ALL races over all time everywhere in every condition. Thus, "changes" of any kind which may have or will occur in racing are included in the analysis.

Thus, all information available about outcomes of all races constitute the "truest" sample - as it is the one which includes the entire population.

Using the population itself as my sample, I'll be left only with some super basic central attractor statistic... with which I cannot possibly win money IF I ASSUME I AM A "NORMALIZED" BETTOR because the amount of money available to win will always be less than all money ever bet minus the minimum track takeout offered.

Thus, value can ONLY be found in subset samples of the population... boutique or snapshot data of some kind: overlays, underlays, knowing who the cheaters are, eliminating certain race types, races that occurred between 1984 and 1992, Races where the grey horse won, Races where the bookie added wrong... who knows...

Poindexter
08-25-2014, 02:28 PM
I am very late to this party, but imo the main reason you want to keep records is that you want to identify the leaks in your game. We all have leaks, whether it is poor betting habits or chasing, not knowing a good way of constructing trifecta or superfecta tickets, ignoring negative jockey changes, getting killed on first time turf horses, ignoring sketch or weak work patterns............it goes on and on and on. Personally, I do not have the time to do most of the record keeping I would love to do but if I was even the least bit serious about beating this game, I would database as much info as I can.

Now do not get me wrong, after losing 100 % on 10 potential bounce horses over 2 months doesn't mean you stop betting them, but it is time to take notice that this may be a leak in your game, and you may want to alter your play on them some(eliminate place and show betting on them) and you might really want to review some past performances to see if there are other patterns that are emerging(not enough time to recover from last start, no works since last start....)

Of course if you do not keep records, you do not know why sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. After all its gambling. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.